OT: The 10th Demention

[GuyOfDoom]

The only point I get out of that chapter is exactly what anyone who's in science should know. What we know is only our best approximation with the information that we currently have.

That doesn't mean we're totally wrong, we just don't know enough yet.

[Azselendor]

GuyOfDoom said:
That doesn't mean we're totally wrong, we just don't know enough yet.

Which, in itself, is a good reason to help promote the sciences. We need to know more.

[Raapys]

I see his point, though. Much of what we "know to be true" is just based on vague and unproven theories, and these hole-riddled theories are the base for which new scientific work is done.

Sort of like putting all your already-broken eggs in a basket that's also about to break.

I'm really curious as to how he goes about explaining the universe, though. Have anyone read the full book?

[Phoenix-D]

Example 3 from the skim, and this one is REALLY amusing:

d = ½at2. Constant acceleration equation. He claims this doesn't have any relationship to gravity at all. No physical forces at all. Except, oh, a. Which is...drumroll please...acceleration due to gravity.

I can guess what his theory would be from all this: crap, and more crap. Scientific theories are used to describe the world, and they do have problems, but they aren't anywhere near as problematic as you're implying, Raapys.

[Raapys]

Well, my knowledge in the area of science isn't exactly staggering, so I wont try to defend my perhaps rash statement.

However, isn't it true much of what he says? One example; how can the law of conservation of energy( "Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another" ) and the laws of gravitation exist both at the same time; aren't they massive contradictions?

[Phoenix-D]

Raapys said:
However, isn't it true much of what he says? One example; how can the law of conservation of energy( "Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another" ) and the laws of gravitation exist both at the same time; aren't they massive contradictions?

Not really. And even if they were, the way he uses them is incorrect; if a law contradicts another law, they have more or less equal chance to be wrong.

Gravity seems to be an intrinsic property of mass. If that's the case it wouldn't use energy the same way as being blue doesn't use energy. (think of reflections the same way. A photon hits an object, then bounces off..at the same wavelength! It changed direction, so obviously there was some energy used to change its course, right? Answer:..not really)

EDIT: I should point out that my specialty is biology, not physics. However I have seen this sort of claim with biology as well (hi there, creationists), and the logic matches. Plus the way he advertise his book- "the book our scientists hope you never read". Usually the kind of thing kooks use.

[Raapys]

I don't know, I still don't see how gravity and magnetism are *not* infinite sources of energy. They can both definitely apply kinetic energy to other masses, and to our knowledge they do not weaken over time, indicating they are inexhaustible.

Photons are a special case, aren't they? Since they can, apparantly, be slowed down by passing through certain matter, then speed up again entirely by themselves.

[AngleWyrm]

The whole book is on P2P for download as a pdf.

While he does raise important questions in the first chapter, his answers are defended with "thought experiments"--a concept attributed to Einstein--which is in my opinion poor science.

"If the earth were to suddenly disappear..." does not have anything to do with the universe in which we live. And understanding the universe in which we live is a big part of it.

[GuyOfDoom]

Thought Experiments are nice examples to show people and serve as the framework for actual experiments, which the man seems to be greatly lacking.

[Raapys]

I found an interesting review of the book over here.

http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf